Why don't we launch our garbage into space?

[Z(ombie)fan]

or better yet... slowly toss it into an active volcano.

surely, that empty SOME landfills. slowly remember.

 

[RJ Dalton]

For the moment, because Obama canceled the space program and he has no apparent intention of ever reinstating it.
After? Because it's not an economically feasible solution. But neither is recycling in most cases, so that's not really much of an argument.

 

[Toastergoat]

I'm pretty we used to think about the ocean as well didn't we, look how that turned out. Bad idea written all over it

 

[ethaninja]

Sounds like an alright idea. Except I think long term ramifications would fuck us up somewhere down the path.

then we just call tali and have her flotilla take the space shit and we're all happy. no consequences.

Haha good idea =D Besides, the by the time we need all that junk gone is when we develop spacecraft anyway. So, calling Tali in the end would probably happen =D

 

[Good morning blues]

I estimate that there are 2 kilograms of garbage in the bag underneath my sink in my kitchen. It would cost $40,000 US dollars to launch that into space.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Cause we're not futurama.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Because general refuse isn't that great a problem and might never become a major problem. No matter how wasteful we become, in reality we don't produce enough garbage to matter. Most of it decomposes too, meaning it goes away just as fast as we produce it. Landfills are not having the impact people seem to think they are, thanks to sensationalised environmental movements.

Toxic or radioactive waste, a real problem, would be dangerous to put into space with our current technology. Not only do we not have the means to move that much refuse into space, let alone cheap enough to not bankrupt a country, but doing so would be dangerous. Given that any malfunction in the rocket means it will rain all that waste back down onto earth in a wide dispursion pattern.

It is far better to safely store such waste in a place where it won't become a problem for the few centuries needed to neutralise it, such as the bottom of a mine shaft in the desert. Sadly those same environmental groups cry to the heavens if you put forth anything other then undoing the industrial revolution completely. Not going to happen so why not find a good, possible, solution and use it?

 

[Burck]

Because putting trash in a landfill is more profitable. Only when landfills becomes scarce and/or space travel becomes cheap enough will this have any possibility of happening.

Which is to say, no less than 100 years from now.

 

[McNinja]

I think it's because we do not have any efficient way to do so. Or at least, no cost-effective way. Each shuttle or anything we send up is hundreds of millions of dollars, and we can't afford that all the time.

 

[Urgh76]

Someone's been watching too much Futurama.

GRR, i got ninja'd even before i clicked on the thread!!

EDIT: O.O Woah, did not look at the post count... if 100 people replied, there was without a doubt that futurama reference, sorry!

 

[Contun]

I'd like to stay on E.T.'s good side...

 

[Nick Holmgren]

To say what has most likely been said before, shooting stuff into space costs a lot of money. Like millions of $ for one families monthly trash. Also if the rocket with the trash goes of course it would end badly .

 

[Twilight_guy]

Do you know how much money it takes to get a ship into space? Nobody wants to put the money in to shot a huge amount of garbage into space.

 

[Ameatypie]

it would take up a ridiculous amount of earth's resources for that to happen, many hundreds of times more than what it would cost to just bury your junk. Also, launching it into space would be much more polluting to the environment.

 

[Vohn_exel]

(unrelated note to the OP: I think I recognize your name from a certain Star Wars themed message board I used to frequent. Hi!)

The Gungan Council, right? Yep I'm the same guy, I use this name everywhere With your name being MetalKing, there's alot of people you could be from there. I don't really frequent the place that much anymore, what was your name there?


OT: Ok so I can see how shooting into space using rockets would be bad, but couldn't we make a really powerful slingshot or a railgun or something? Also perhaps we could send it somewhere, like to the moon or another planet, so that later on if we do find out how to mine something from the stuff that we can't do anything with, we could send a probe or something to go and retrieve what we need.

 

[klakkat]

1) Trash isn't as much a problem as people claim. Most is bio-degradable now days, metal (which oxidizes into forms identical to or resembling minerals), or glass. With the exception of a few key things (lead-acid batteries) trash today is of no environmental concern, and those few things that are a concern are recycled.

2):

Hate to introduce real points to an argument like this on a forum, but here we go:

1) cost: it currently costs $20,000 USD per Kg to launch a payload into space. Go check your trash bag. Probably 1kg-2kg alone.
http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf

2) Retrieval. Despite making an enormous mess when burying, it leaves the possibility of retrieving resources from it in the future. Once you launch something off the planet, that matter cannot be used again.

He has it correct. It is FUCKING EXPENSIVE to launch anything into space, and you pay by the pound. Oh, and the reason it's so expensive? you have to burn a shitload of fuel to get it into orbit (or beyond), and most of that burnt fuel stays on earth. So to launch one kg of trash into space, you would pollute earth with about 100 kg worth of fuel exhaust.

OT: Ok so I can see how shooting into space using rockets would be bad, but couldn't we make a really powerful slingshot or a railgun or something? Also perhaps we could send it somewhere, like to the moon or another planet, so that later on if we do find out how to mine something from the stuff that we can't do anything with, we could send a probe or something to go and retrieve what we need.

The energy expenditure is the same, regardless of the method used. A rail gun that launched payload into space would pollute earth just as much as a rocket; perhaps even more since it involves additional layers of inefficiency; the rocket uses direct propelling power while the rail gun would require burning of fossil fuels at a power plant to produce electricity, which then must be wired to the rail gun.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Too costly and only sidesteps the issue. The pollution will go somewhere until we actually get rid of it by way of efficient recycling and cleaner production.

And the lifeforms out there won't be happy if our trash enters their orbit.

 

[GodlyKitteh]

1. Its too expensive, as said before.

2. Contrary to popular belief Universe wasn't made exclusively for humans, there are other life forms, other planets that could be fucked up for a long time if our junk happens to hit them.

3. Also, nothing can guarantee you that the garbage won't be pulled back and eventually return and hit Earth, causing even more problems.